Mikovits, 5G, and Economic Collapse, Part III: “Tracing” the Fourth Amendment

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Welcome to the races, very exciting time! The Bill of Rights neck in neck with HR 6666 (aka The Trace Act).  I know where my money is going – call your bookie and make a killing!

As of May 6, 2020, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives, intriguingly numbered HR 6666. It was sponsored by 45 of the 435 members (more than 10% — that’s unusual). It is called The TRACE Act.

Currently it is “in Committee” – namely the Committee on Energy and Commerce. If the committee “reports it out,” it will go for a full House vote. In order to be enacted as law, it would also have to pass the Senate and get the president’s signature.

The name TRACE is an acronym for Testing, Reaching, and Contacting Everyone. Think of it as “Wassermann revisited.” The Wassermann test was a blood test administered to persons applying for a marriage license, to help them find out if the other person had syphilis. There was also a public health law on venereal disease that involved asking the person whom he/she had “contact” with, and then contacting them to tell them they’re in danger of VD or whatever.

Bill HR 6666, is about Covid-19. Note: it is not a law claiming that it’s OK to go into homes and test for the disease or make a list of the person’s recent contacts. No, it is merely a law to allow funds to be paid to organizations that would do that.

Hmm. It therefore seems to depend on there being an additional law or decree, or some stamp of legitimacy, on the action itself – the door-knocking, the testing, and the contacts. As least that is how I read HR 6666. The relevant laws would be passed – apparently – by states.

Shamefully, Congress often arranges for appropriations like this to be handed the states. It’s politely known as “federal funding” for things that Congress is not allowed to legislate on, thanks to the restrictions of ArticIe I, section 8, of the US Constitution.

Education is a famous example.  At present, teachers have to see that kids meet federal standards, in the infamous “core curriculum,” or else their local school board might sack them. This is because the state is keen to get that funding.

This is a horrendous breach (or ”get-around”) of the Constitution. Congress has no business whatsoever in influencing education. Education is to be carried out by the states, or not carried out by them if they choose to revoke public education.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights, that is, first ten amendments to the Constitution, were ratified as one solid block. They came into force in 1791.  During the ratification process, state by state, ordinary citizens got their two cents in.

Pardon me if I start slobbering, but the Bill of Rights, indeed the whole US Constitution, is the best thing that ever happened. It was a matter of luck that a British colony was starting up at a time when ideas such as John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690) had been circulating in the Mother Country.

The heretofore shocking phrase “consent of the governed” tripped off people’s tongue. George Mason in 1774 promulgated the Fairfax Resolves, and in 1776 Tom Paine went virtually door-knocking with his pamphlet, Common Sense.

It wasn’t long before other countries imitated these ideas, causing a few revolutions. And in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly tipped its hat by making a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, confirming basic freedoms. Its Article 3 is the “right to life, liberty and security of persons.”

The UN Declaration started with:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts….” [Tell me about it]

That’s the whole point, isn’t it? If you don’t have a clear statement of the desirable, all manner of evil will triumph. Not that a clear statement is sufficient, but a “sacred document” can become part of the culture, making it difficult for the evil doers to get their way.

It Used To Work Well

When I was growing up, in the 1950s and ’60s, the evil doers would be drummed out by the masses. Well, maybe it wasn’t the masses, it only had to be a quorum of big-mouths.  Possibly just one stern look.

Even the mainstream media could be counted on (not joshing here) to add to the noise-making and the gasps of horror, or whatever was needed to get us back on track.

Today, the Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they read the TRACE Act, HR 6666.  And if they could jump out of their graves and talk to us, they’d give a good stiff bawling out to those of us (roughly all of us) who had let slip our grip on the Bill of Rights.

Starting around 1980, with the Reagan/Bush presidency, people slowly but surely took their eyes off the prize. I imagine that this had to do, in large part, with the easy life that had become the norm for the American middle class. But we are also aware now that “conditioning” was occurring at a high level. Citizens were being conditioned and so were our legislators. Foul stuff.

I guess the present House of Representatives is 100% conditioned. In fact, so were the Congresspersons who passed the Patriot Act in 2001, soon after 9-11, without even having read its text.

The US PATRIOT Act is an acronym, like the TRACE Act. It stands for: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.”  (Try not to puke.)

Maybe the authors of HR 6666 could have just changed one word: The US PATRIOV Act: “providing appropriate tools to intercept and obstruct a virus.”

Call Your Bookie

Thank God the nation has woken up, and so has the world. I was moved to write this celebratory article when I got a call from Stuart Weeks, the organizer of an event scheduled for May 31, 2020 in Concord, Massachusetts, the place that British troops (redcoats) rode to, on April 18, 1775, looking for the colonists’ cache of arms. That action started the Revolutionary War.

The event on May 31^st (Pentecost Sunday) will be live-streamed on 911TV.org, by Hummux, the dissident who live-streamed my Boston Marathon lecture at the Watertown Public Library in 2018.  Um, don’t get me started on the Marathon.

So, Stuart Weeks phoned today and asked me to participate in this squawk (social distancing be damned, I guess). He plans to hold it precisely at the location of “the shot heard round the world” in 1775 – namely at the North Bridge in Concord, of which Ralph Waldo Emerson later wrote:

“By the rude bridge that arched the flood

Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled

Here once the embattled farmers stood

And fired the shot heard round the world.”

(Are you cryin’ yet?  I am.  See, I was brought up proper.)

How Is HR 6666 in Breach?

Stuart Weeks hopes his “town meeting” in Concord will run on for several days with speakers on any aspect of “the situation.” I shall deliver the goods on vaccination or treason, or whatever.

But, since the host asked for my thoughts about the unconstitutionality of the various edicts (wear a mask, don’t go to church, wash hands, close you’re your business, heel, fetch slippers, etc), I shall pen a few words here.

The unmitigated cheek of it all is really stunning, isn’t it? Mind you, the unmitigated cheek of military-style men entering homes in Watertown, on “the nineteenth of April in 2013” — to look for the putative Bomber 2 — was pretty stunning, but we neglected to react.

(Swearda God, that was the purpose of the manhunt — to get us ready for Covid-19. We should have reacted in Watertown, but don’t you worry, we are going to react in another Massachusetts town this time! HR 6666 versus the Bill of Rights is a pathetic contest.)

Fourth and Fourteenth

Consider the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Specifically look at the phrase “The right of the people to be SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS.”  Secure, as in not having your arm injected with an unknown substance – or even a known substance. Just not being manhandled. Good Lord, how dare they!

Now see where it’s promised that the right “against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES … shall not be violated.”  The Wasserman test was pretty unreasonable in creating a list of contacts of whom you slept with, pardon my French. And now you are to spill the beans as to whom you “visited” during those boring days of the lockdown.

Oh really?  Not on your nelly.  Not on your Fourth Amendment.

Have a glance at “NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE [by a judge] but on probable cause.” Yet three days ago (May 13, 2020), the US Senate, over Rand Paul’s dead body – figuratively — passed a renewed permission for the CIA (come on, you know it’s the CIA) to read your mail and maybe your thoughts, why not.

Why not?  I’ll tell you why not. Because you idiots in the Senate can’t pass a law that breaches the Constitution, in this case, Amendment IV of the Constitution. No warrant shall bloody well issue. Do you get it? Didn’t your parents teach you these basics?  Our legislature labors to make statutes that HONOR the Constitution, not that toss it into the waste basket.

The Fourteenth Amendment needs to be considered, also.  It says that just as the feds can’t pass breachy laws, neither can the states. Your name is Baker? Sununu?  Cuomo?  Your decrees are void if not compatible with the parchment. Read this. It came in after the Civil War, in 1868:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [Emphasis added]

I suggest the reader send it to Baker, Sununu, Cuomo, et al, as they quite possibly haven’t heard of it.

The US Supreme Court Spaketh, in 1905

Oh but — I hear someone say – back in 1905 Cambridge Massachusetts successfully passed a law mandating smallpox vaccination for all, and stipulating a $5 fine for noncompliance. A man named Jacobson refused to be vaccinated, as a previous round had caused a bad reaction in him and his son. On being fined, he took the case to court. (Imagine today, paying for a lawsuit to get 5 bucks back.)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, God love ’em, agreed with Jacobson, but the defendant, the Board of Health of Cambridge, marched it to the Supreme Court. There, Justice Harlan, writing for the majority, in 1905, approved of the Massachusetts statute that had allowed local health authorities to call the shots. He did, however, add this caution at the end:

“The police power of a State [which traditionally refers to power over public health also], whether exercised by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”

Yay!

In a later case, Zucht v King (1922), the US Supreme Court ruled that city authorities could prevent an unvaccinated child from registering for school. That case is almost a century old; there hasn’t been any further jurisprudence on vax.

It is noteworthy, for our purposes today, that Jacobson v Massachusetts did not include the matter of a person being forced to take the shot. Mr Jacobson could, and did, refuse the shot, but had to pay the fine.

What If the Court Does the Wrong Thing?

There is no guarantee that our top judiciary will honor the Constitution today.  They certainly failed to do so in Citizens United in 2010, and in Albert Florence’s 2012 case (“It’s OK to strip-search a guy, when arrested for a minor traffic violation.”). So, should we just lie down and take it?

Hark back now to the 1948 Universal Declaration on Huan Rights. It is not an enforceable law; the UN passed it merely as passed as a resolution. It used some flowery words in its preamble:

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law….” [Emphasis added]

Ah, Speaking of the Second Amendment:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

Call your bookie.  Make a killing!